4 ms·

Since the product is standard, why is it actually bad? If there are too many brands to be included in a single advert, just choose randomly (the lower the price

Since the product is standard, why is it actually bad? If there are too many brands to be included in a single advert, just choose randomly (the lower the price, the higher the probability for a single brand; I don't know the function).

pixl97 3y ago
Because, in the US, this will quickly fall foul of free speech laws. Over 'public' airwaves maybe you could go some distance with this, but advertising on private property, as long as it is not fraudulent will present a constitutional challenge to what your saying. And, you're also crating a regulatory nightmare. Say I put up an add for XXYZXX company, and it includes ZZXYZZ and YYXZYY information (I mean totally random picks), and I just happen to have a stake in those companies too. Now you're going to have to track hundreds of thousands of these entities to ensure no fraud is occurring, and in most cases the fines for this kind of behavior are well under the cost of doing business. Everything you've said so far just creates bigger messes and solves nothing.
- chromoblob 3y ago
  It solves a hypothetical skew towards brands offered by already richer businesses. About regulation, how hard is it to just audit the random picking procedure? I now understand that my second variant, with vetoing of final advertisement, is very flawed (one can cheaply obstruct anyone's advertisement by making a company that vetoes any version of it). How about dividing an advertisement into pieces of information solely about each distinct brand, and let every brand owner compose the piece for its brand? Then all pieces are added into final concrete form in a collaboration - I think it would succeed in most cases, and if brand owners can't collaborate, then an independent company will work on it. Then we need to look how exactly freedom of speech is defined. If it means ability to express views without attaching any additional information, then such freedom is incompatible with my proposal. But if freedom of speech allows attaching additional information as long as base message is preserved, I see no problems. Note that the proposal essentially just forces you to advertise other brands as they wish, along with any advertisement that you do, which (brands) it doesn't mention.

pixl97 3y ago

Because, in the US, this will quickly fall foul of free speech laws. Over 'public' airwaves maybe you could go some distance with this, but advertising on private property, as long as it is not fraudulent will present a constitutional challenge to what your saying. And, you're also crating a regulatory nightmare. Say I put up an add for XXYZXX company, and it includes ZZXYZZ and YYXZYY information (I mean totally random picks), and I just happen to have a stake in those companies too. Now you're going to have to track hundreds of thousands of these entities to ensure no fraud is occurring, and in most cases the fines for this kind of behavior are well under the cost of doing business. Everything you've said so far just creates bigger messes and solves nothing.

chromoblob 3y ago
It solves a hypothetical skew towards brands offered by already richer businesses. About regulation, how hard is it to just audit the random picking procedure? I now understand that my second variant, with vetoing of final advertisement, is very flawed (one can cheaply obstruct anyone's advertisement by making a company that vetoes any version of it). How about dividing an advertisement into pieces of information solely about each distinct brand, and let every brand owner compose the piece for its brand? Then all pieces are added into final concrete form in a collaboration - I think it would succeed in most cases, and if brand owners can't collaborate, then an independent company will work on it. Then we need to look how exactly freedom of speech is defined. If it means ability to express views without attaching any additional information, then such freedom is incompatible with my proposal. But if freedom of speech allows attaching additional information as long as base message is preserved, I see no problems. Note that the proposal essentially just forces you to advertise other brands as they wish, along with any advertisement that you do, which (brands) it doesn't mention.